Editorial: Constitution not always literal

That depends on what or whom is attempting to gain benefit from a release of constitutional hot air and the motivation behind such an attempt.

This never-ending question of the constitution’s flexibility is again relevant because of the divisive issue of gun control.

Illogically, some gun control proponents cite the specificity of the Second Amendment as reason to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

Such individuals contend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the firearms and weapons prevalent in the days of the founding fathers. Following this logic, or lack thereof, Americans in 2013 only have a constitutional right to bear muskets, primarily, and that is about it as far as firearms.

Following this misguided constitutional rationale, freedom of the press (listed in the First Amendment) would only extend to the printed newspaper product, which was the “press” in the late 1790s. In 2013, this would mean online media content (newspaper websites), television and radio would be subject to government control if not outright government censorship.

Thankfully, that is not the case. There seems little, if any, constitutional confusion when it comes to how freedom of the press has adapted and changed in its application in more than 200 years.

If the U.S. Constitution is indeed living and breathing, then it is interesting that when it comes to gun control, many who support more restrictive gun laws consider the Second Amendment to be airtight. In other words, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” does not apply to certain types of firearms.

We can debate whether George Washington actually uttered what is known as the “Liberty Teeth” phrase: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. That is not the point.

If so-called “assault weapons” had been around in Washington’s day when Americans were risking their lives against oppression and tyranny — fighting in towns, streets and around their homes — we feel confident this technology would have been used, with the ultimate goal the same as the musket or any other firearm of the day.

It makes little sense to assume that “right of the people to keep and bear arms” would have contained an exclusion.